IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2191-2025 Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Ranvir Singh Malik ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to pay interest on delayed payment of leave encashment to the tune of Rs.2,27,400/- and set aside recovery notice dated 16.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent has raised demand of Rs.8,02,330/-.

2. The petitioner on 31.05.2014 retired from the office of Housing Board, Haryana as Executive Engineer. The dispute erupted between a group of employees and respondent with respect to fixation of their pay and consequential benefits. They preferred CWP-1852-2003, Vijay Kumar Verma and others vs. State of Haryana and others before this Court. The matter came to be settled by way of judgment dated 04.12.2014 passed by this Court. The operative portion of judgment dated 04.12.2014 is reproduced as below:-

“Consequently, the respondent-Board is directed to grant the same pay scale to the petitioners which was granted to the engineers of Public Works Department (PWD) of the respondent-State w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all consequential service benefits. Since the legally justified claim of the petitioners has been illegally withheld during all these years, petitioners shall be entitled for the arrears of salary with interest at the rate of 9 % from the date the amount became due till the date of actual payment. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If needful is not done within the stipulated period, petitioners shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12 % per annum.”

3. The respondent unsuccessfully preferred intra-court appeal against aforesaid judgment dated 04.12.2014. The respondent, in compliance of judgment dated 04.12.2014 of this Court, vide order dated 03.08.2018 followed by order dated 14.09.2018 refixed pay of the petitioner. The petitioner was paid approximately Rs.35,00,000/- which included interest @ 12% per annum as awarded by this Court. The petitioner was also paid differential amount of leave encashment Rs.2,27,400/-. The respondent on 24.06.2020 recalculated pay and allowances of the petitioner and found that there was excess payment to the tune of Rs.6,51,137/-. The respondent made further calculation and came to a conclusion that there is excess payment to the tune of Rs.8,02,330/-. The respondent vide notice dated 16.02.2024 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8,02,330/- which was paid in excess of his actual entitlement.

4. Mr. Sandeep Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent made calculation on 14.09.2018 as per directions of this Court. The payment as per calculation was made on 31.10.2018. The respondent at its own made fresh calculation on 24.06.2020 and 02.08.2023 whereby it was declared that there was excess payment to the tune of Rs.8,02,330/-. The respondent has issued recovery notice after 5 years from the date of payment which is bad in the eye of law. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as instructions dated 20.01.2017 issued by State Government. The instructions have been issued in view of judgment of Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267. The respondent cannot make recovery from a retired employee at the fag end of his life.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana who is present in Court accepts notice and submits that it is not a case of excess payment during service whereas it is a case of wrong cal